[Lisa Van Loo]

This topic was brought up on a different forum, so I thought it might be an interesting one for RTFer's.

Specifically, what do you consider to be a trick test? Here's a paraphrase of what I put on the other board. I consider a trick test to be any test that is selecting for the least poor-quality dog, rather than looking for the best good-quality dog.

Lisa

 

[Gerard Rozas]

We have talked alot about natural marking tests on these boards. Although that should be the goal of every test, sometimes grounds and time and resources dictate otherwise. In FT anyway, you could face just about anything. I don't complain anymore, just move on and chalk it up to experience as to what I will do and will not do in the future. I don't like it when judges waste great terrain. But you can never say never in this game - someday you might have to setup land marks for a 100+ dog open on a football field - you better know how to do tight and techincal.

 

[Steve]

My description of one is a test that you can't train for or at least would be stupid to try.

I'm not sure whether an empty boat constitutes a trick test. If it is already there, visible from the line, and no one walks near it (scent), then probably not. Actually moving a boat into place will add scent to the area, and can trick some dogs.

Having gunners turn around and face the other way seems to be a direct violation of the rule regarding moving gunners to deliberately mislead dogs.

The individual in question seems to have some issues with pro trained dogs.

 

[tom]

I'll stick to my deffinition on the other forum. "A 'trick' is when a judge asks our dogs to do what they were trained not to do" ie: bank running, etc.
There is aboslutly nothing wrong with technical marks, as long as they comply with the 'intent' of the rules.

tom

 

[brian breuer]

Tom,

Got a question for you. Do you consider a mark that a direct line to the bird is 3' up on the bank to be a trick test and if so why? I thought the goal was to take a straight line no matter what. I realize this goes against what a the common honesty training works for (to get the dog in the water and stay there) but it seems like a reasonable scenerio and maybe a way to get some separation in highly trained dogs.

Thanks for your input.

 

[tom]

Brian
All depends on how it is set up. I am not talking about a land mark in close prox to water. My refference would be setting up a land mark/blind designed to fool the dog into thinking it is a water mark/blind. As we all know 'shore breaking' is a tough ordeal and it just isn't fair to the dog or the trainer to set up marks/blinds that can set that training back eons. Obviously more of a derby/qual problem than an AA problem, but still------

A bank running mark/blind is only one example however of how the methods we use to train our dogs could be used to 'trick' them. Many of the rules that are now in place are there to prevent 'tricks' (like moving the gun stations) So my deffinition is aimed at 'intentionally attemting to deceive' the dog through the use of commonly used training methods.
tom

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I am looking more for a global perspective, people's definitions of trickery. Just exactly what constitutes trickery? I think it's hard to define. It all boils down to the question being asked by the judges. What are the judges looking for? In each series? In the stake as a whole? Are they setting tests up to find a clear top-notch winner, or are they looking for the best of the fortunate survivors?

I think it is possible to set up a tight, technical test without deliberately attempting to deceive the dogs. It may be a fine distinction, but I do believe it is possible. Tight and technical, in and of itself, is not tricky. Tight and technical with an intent to confuse, deceive, or deliberately eliminate good dogs is trickery.

Lisa

 

[Joe S.]

Please help me understand:

Tight and technical with an intent to confuse, deceive, or deliberately eliminate good dogs is trickery.

Isn't the intent of tight and technical marks by definition to confuse, deceive, or deliberately eliminate good dogs in search of a clear winner?

Joe S. - searching for understanding

 

[Mark Copeland]

Does a 3rd series water "eraser bird triple" in a derby constitute "tricky"?

What about a "flower pot w/eraser bird flier" in a master test?

How does a derby "in-line double with NO separation, both thrown right with a short bird flier" sound?

I was too green to chalk these up as "tricky", just walked away wondering how I was going to train for it.

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I think the key phrase is "with intent to delibertly mislead". You can have tight and technical and still has distinict seperate marks with each having its own pitfalls. But to try and fool or trick a dog is shameful at best.

I have seen fake gun stations in a set of marks.

fake gun stations that pop but do not throw a bird during a set of marks.

As for a canoe left in the field - I don't see anything wrong with it, or even moving it if the canoe was in the way or presented a hazard. I would stop short of moving it online to a fall or blind. I would remove it if other marks were thrown from a canoe in this test.

I have faced guns in different directions - normally like them in a NEUTRAL direction, facing the line. But I have turned them slightly, not to mislead the dog, but to make them either more visible or less visible. Guns facing the line sometime are not very visible because knees blocking white shirts on slouching birdboys. Sometimes having them at a 45 into the sun gives the best visiblity, esp important in the derby. For AA, when a test could go on all day, you are kinda stuck with what you are going to get. Just because a gun station is in the sun to start, does not mean it will be there at the end of the day.

In short - anything slight of hand - esp moving bird boy or gun stations - I think is trickery.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

It all depends on definition. One person's "tight and technical" is not another's. One person's tricky is not another's. As I posted to someone in a PM, on that "other" site, the definition of "trick test" seems to be "whatever my dog couldn't do". Where is the line between legitimate testing of a dog's natural and trained abilities, and "tricky"?

Maybe it's a trick question! :lol:

I agree with Gerard, judges who squander good grounds and plentiful help should be SHOT! However, judges can still set up tight (define) or technical (also define) without going out of their way to trick dogs. Sometimes the grounds or help dictate this situation. Also, some times (many times) it is the minor stakes where this seems to happen most, since derby, qual, junior, etc. alway get hind teat when it comes to grounds and help. Sad situation, since the minor dogs are LEAST able to deal with an out-and-out trick test.

Lisa

 

[Richard Cheatham]

A trick test is a test designed to deceive or lie to the dog. As trainers and handlers we are taught that the way we teach dogs is through fairness, honesty and consistency. A trick test violates these principals and therefore dogs cannot realistically be trained for them.

One test that comes to mind:

A dry gunner station, complete with a dry shot, set up in front and close to the line of a longer retired gun. This test is designed to make the dog think a short mark was thrown when in fact it was not. The fact that the long gun retires adds to the deception.

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I don't think an inline, esp if it is thrown really flat, as being deceptive. I don't think a tight hip pocket or a california or Texas double is being decieptive. It is not the best to be sure, using another mark to make a mark more difficult. Especially the reason a lot of dogs are going to fail is by simply not watching the long bird because they are staring down the short one. Sure you hope (as a judge looking for seperation) that some dogs fall for the trap and go back to the short birds, but you also want some dogs to smack it and be in a postion to win this trial. Nothing is more frustrating than having a bunch of dogs (esp dogs in good shape) in the 4th stumble and you end up with a mess to sort out places.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I am looking more for a global perspective, people's definitions of trickery. Just exactly what constitutes trickery?

Lisa

From a hunt test perspective, which of course hardly qualifies as global, but I figured there was some trickery when they shot and threw four in the current, and turned both the working dog and honor dog loose on them.

I also hated the intermediate level dog having to honor while running the working dog directly in front of it as it went for the go bird. Or a worse scenario is making that dog sit through the return, and have the WD waddle by with bird in mouth.

While anything goes in AA trials, I always felt it was CS to drop the flyer in the water in front of the honor/working dogs, and double sluice it. That's some inept judging with a maniacal sense of humor.

UB

 

[EdA]

While anything goes in AA trials, I always felt it was CS to drop the flyer in the water in front of the honor/working dogs, and double sluice it. That's some inept judging with a maniacal sense of humor.
UB

And potentially very dangerous.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

Actually, UB, I think the definition of "tricky" (if there is a definitin) would apply across the board, to all games. Turning again to "tight and technical", MOST Master tests I have seen have been tight and technical to a greater or lesser extent. yet MOST have NOT been what I would call "tricky". They are shorter and tighter than what FT dogs are generally accustomed to, but in most instances don't fit what I define as a trick, i.e., deliberate attempt to deceive a dog. In HT, judges don't have the luxury of mark length to factor in test setups, so they rely on other things.


Lisa

 

[Emily Faith]

To me, an example of a "trick" test is one designed to make a dog think that it has already picked up a bird. I.e.--you come up to the line and there is a triple out in the field, with guns standing up. You have to no the dog off that and run a blind. The blind is right next to one of the gun stations standing in the field. Once you have the blind, they throw the triple and retire the gun station right next to the blind. Dog thinks it already got that bird and won't go in there to get the mark.

Another trick is a blind that has the dog out of sight when he is on line, then, while out of sight, he encounters a hazard (scent, gun station, what have you) to pull him off line where the handler can't see the dog and the dog can't see the handler, therefore, the dog can't be handled out of the hazard.

 

[EdA]

Having gunners turn around and face the other way seems to be a direct violation of the rule regarding moving gunners to deliberately mislead dogs.

The rule regarding moving the guns so as to deliberately mislead the dog in their marking refers to relocating the guns to a position other than the one that they threw from. The rule has absolutely nothing to do with how they are seated 8)

I suppose that this one belongs in the "how dogs mark" category. I just don't buy into the theory that they way the gun is facing makes a hoot to the dog. If it does, then the dogs are concerned about the wrong thing.

I personally wouldn't face them the opposite way that they're throwing because of people's perception that they even notice such things. In my 30+ years of watching dogs in the field I don't believe that the dogs have any concept of anything except the presence of a person in a chair or on a 4 wheeler. We throw marks and sit on 4 wheelers most of the time, sometimes facing the line, sometimes perpendicular to the line. If the dogs were so intune to the way the gun was facing then it would be easy to deceive them. I think they mark the bird, or at the least a reasonable area of the fall.

Would it be possible to train them to only go to the side of the gun that the gunners are facing? Possibly, but why waste all that training time when 1/2 to 2/3 of the all-age marks are now retired.

I'm with Gerard, when judging I often have them sitting facing the line for the sake of visibility, not to try and influence them one way or the other.

Get down at dog level sometime, imagine that you're a dog. Take a look at that mark at 300 yards. What are you looking at before you're sent to retrieve? You're looking at where you think the bird is, not which way the gunner is seated. Heck, much of the time you might only see a little bit of white. The dog would have to be much closer to the gun to determine the seating arrangement. I would not think that at that point he/she would suddenly change thier mind about where they thought the bird was.

Just MHO based on oberserving lots and lots of dogs from the field (an excellent place to observe dog behavior I might add). I encourage everyone to watch their own dog from the field on a regular basis, you may learn something about them you'd never learn from watching them from the line.

 

[Tim Carrion]

The rule regarding moving the guns so as to deliberately mislead the dog in their marking refers to relocating the guns to a position other than the one that they threw from. The rule has absolutely nothing to do with how they are seated 8)

I suppose that this one belongs in the "how dogs mark" category. I just don't buy into the theory that they way the gun is facing makes a hoot to the dog. If it does, then the dogs are concerned about the wrong thing.

I personally wouldn't face them the opposite way that they're throwing because of people's perception that they even notice such things. In my 30+ years of watching dogs in the field I don't believe that the dogs have any concept of anything except the presence of a person in a chair or on a 4 wheeler. We throw marks and sit on 4 wheelers most of the time, sometimes facing the line, sometimes perpendicular to the line. If the dogs were so intune to the way the gun was facing then it would be easy to deceive them. I think they mark the bird, or at the least a reasonable area of the fall.

Would it be possible to train them to only go to the side of the gun that the gunners are facing? Possibly, but why waste all that training time when 1/2 to 2/3 of the all-age marks are now retired.

I'm with Gerard, when judging I often have them sitting facing the line for the sake of visibility, not to try and influence them one way or the other.

Get down at dog level sometime, imagine that you're a dog. Take a look at that mark at 300 yards. What are you looking at before you're sent to retrieve? You're looking at where you think the bird is, not which way the gunner is seated. Heck, much of the time you might only see a little bit of white. The dog would have to be much closer to the gun to determine the seating arrangement. I would not think that at that point he/she would suddenly change thier mind about where they thought the bird was.

Just MHO based on oberserving lots and lots of dogs from the field (an excellent place to observe dog behavior I might add). I encourage everyone to watch their own dog from the field on a regular basis, you may learn something about them you'd never learn from watching them from the line.

Ed,
I have to disagree with you on this one. In watching dogs out in a field I think the experienced dog does look at which way the guns are facing both as he approaches and during his hunt of an area. I've seen many a dog line at the gun and flare towards the side the gun was facing, even before 2 sided dogs were fashionable.
:idea: How about an experiment: 100 dogs from this board, a 250 yd dry shot with several bumpers planted on each side of the thrower. 50 dogs sent from left with 25 throwers facing R and 25 throwers facing L, then the same for 50 dogs being sent from the right. We record which bumper the dog retrieves per situation.

Granted it is not a mark but it may tell the effect of how a gun faces and the effect of 2 sided dogs.
Tim

 

[Howard N]

While anything goes in AA trials, I always felt it was CS to drop the flyer in the water in front of the honor/working dogs, and double sluice it. That's some inept judging with a maniacal sense of humor.

This has gotta be a trick. It tricked my dog into retrieving before being told to more than a couple of times. :roll: Didn't even need an honor to complicate it.